Google tried to sabotage it in favour of its own WebP standard.
Nobody gives a shit about WebP.
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
127 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
82621 readers
3160 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Just as many people don’t give a shit about jpeg XL.
They don't have to. It's backwards compatible. You can ignore it and we can keep on happily using it.
Fuck Google, fuck WebP.
How is JPEG XL backwards compatible?
It's "compatible" in that it can represent old JPEG/JFIF data more efficiently and in less space, and the transformation to JPEG XL and back to JPEG/JFIF is lossless (in that you don't lose any /more/ quality, you can get the same bits back out) and quick enough to be doable on-demand. You could, for example, re-encode all your old photos on your CDN as JPEG XL without loss of quality but save a bunch of disc space and bandwidth when serving to modern browsers, and translate dynamically back to the old format for older browers, all with no loss of quality.
How is it backwards compatible? Everything I’ve read so far says the opposite — That it requires recoding the image into the new format, and keeping around or generating an old copy of the image in current jpeg format for older software.
Are you saying a browser or app that currently only supports Jpeg can open and render a Jpeg-XL image?
Edit: Yeah. It’s not backward compatible. And system admins are already doing the “make two copies of an image thing with webp and the current jpg format.
The re-encoding requires less computation vs other formats.
why webp is bad? besides google forcing it apparently
Their dumb counter argument was AVIF, for the same reason as webp which is reduced total size since they're a massive cloud provider and want to penny pinch costs wherever possible.
JPEG-XL also has a progressive loading algorithm that increases the quality as you download instead of classic vertical scan loading, which is sick but I don't think any browser actually bothered to implement it yet after the Google hit job.
Hopefully will see it in action soon.
It is pretty great for shrinking the filesize of my photos. It's a part of the PDF standard now. It'll get great support across the board eventually. Still pretty early in adoption
Fuck Chrome.
Good, Chrome has allowed them to be in a position to dictate the future of internet standards for too long. Fuck em
This is good but no matter what I don't think Google should have such a monopoly over the web.
Can someone ELI5? I read the article. 🙃
chromium gets jpeg xl support, a more superior alternative to jpeg and webp